Putins Quest For a Monroe Doctrine
31 January 2017By Amir Taheri
Among the questions around President Donald Trumps foreign policy, one stands
out: what is the future of US relations with Russia?
So far, however, Trump and members of his national security team have provided
vague, and at times contradictory, replies. What the new administration needs
to do first is to decide how to clearly describe Russia. The outgoing Obama
administration never made up its mind in that regard.
On occasions, such as the circus around the Iran nuclear dossier and the
dodge-ball that Obama played on Syria, Russia was described as ''our partner''
by both Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. On other occasions,
Moscows annexation of Crimea for example, the Obama-Kerry tandem described
Russia as ''a challenge''.
Russia, however, has had little difficulty in labeling the US as it sees it.
The adjective the Kremlin and the media under its control use to describe the
US is ''vrag'' which, loosely translated means ''foe.'' That was the label that
the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev used against the US in the 1960s when he
came out with his ''we will bury you'' boast.
More discerning Russians who remember that ''vrag'' was used to describe Nazi
Germany prefer the less dramatic ''protivnik'' which means ''adversary.'' More
cautious commentators in Moscow suggest the still softer term ''nedobrojelatie''
(rival).
By coincidence, the label ''adversary'' was used by the new US Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson to describe Russia during his Senate confirmation
hearings.
On a spectrum of relations, a nation might place other nations in different
categories. At one end there will be'' friends'', nations with which one has
close ties and on whose sympathy and support one could count on at all times.
At any given time, few nations fall in that category. At the opposite end to
''friends'' are ''foes'', enemies bent on your destruction that must be defeated
and destroyed. Again, few nations fit that category at any given time.
The spectrum also includes other categories: adversaries and rivals, as well
as partners and allies. To be sure, such categorization isnt based on hard
and fast rules. At times, a ''friend'' could act as a ''rival'' on specific issues
while an ''adversary'' might become a tactical ''partner'' when it is in in its
interest. The task of diplomacy is to judge when and how to identify others
according to a strategic vision of ones own national interests. The goal of
foreign policy is to isolate and defeat ''foes'', and transform ''adversaries''
and ''rivals'' into partners, and if possible, even ''friends''.
The Kremlin media are wrong that the US isnt a ''foe'' for Russia. Even during
the Cold War, few in the United States wished to destroy Russia. The US tried
three strategies: containment between 1948 and 1968, détente until 1980 and,
finally, rollback until the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Tillerson, however, is right: today, Russia is an ''adversary'' for the United
States. Thus, the aim of the new US administration should be to deny Russia
the opportunity to pursue adversarial policies while, at the same time, the
door should be open for persuading Moscow to downgrade its hostility by
becoming, at most, a ''rival''.
The sooner that aim is spelled out, the better for all concerned. Right now,
many in the Kremlin, and some circles in the West, fantasize about what they
believe is President Trumps soft spot for Vladimir Putin. Some of Trumps
opponents have even tried to cast him as ''the Moscow candidate'' vulnerable to
Russian blackmail. (In 1828 similar charges were leveled against President
John Quincy Adams. He was accused of being a procurer for the Russian Tsar
during his tenure as US Ambassador to Saint Petersburg!)
I doubt that Trump has a soft spot for Putin or anyone else except himself for
that matter, and, even if he did, such affection wouldnt change the nature of
the relationship between the two nations. As for blackmail material, even if
Putin did have any against Trump, it is unlikely that the US will sacrifice
national interests to keep a lid on any scandal.
Russia is acting as an adversary in a number of ways. It is trying to impose
its version of a Monroe Doctrine on nations in the Baltics, Central and
Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia with a mixture of proximity
pressure, propaganda war, and in the cases of Georgia and Ukraine, military
intervention.
Moscow has already succeeded in toppling a pro-US president in Bishkek,
Kyrgyzstan, while halting closer ties between the US and such former Soviet
republics as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. More recently, Moscow scored another
victory by propelling one of its allies into the seat of power in Yerevan,
Armenia. In a similar vein, Moscow has ''persuaded'' Azerbaijan to tone down its
pro-US stance while using the tactic of flattery with Kazakhstan towards the
same goal. Putin is also trying to drive a wedge between Turkey, in its moment
of confusion, and NATO allies.
Russia wants to ''Finlandize'' its ''near neighbors'', which means all the former
Soviet republics plus the Islamic Republic in Iran and Afghanistan.
(Throughout the Cold War Finland accepted certain limits to its sovereignty in
exchange for a guarantee it wouldnt be invaded by the Soviets.)
Weakening NATO and the European Union, the two military and political pillars
of the global strategy of the so-called ''Free World'' during the Cold War
remains one of Putins top goals. Trumps ambiguous statements on NATO and EU
have encouraged that strategy. And, yet, the new US Secretary of Defense,
James Mattis, has emphasized the need to ''strengthen'' NATO while Tillerson has
expressed support for the EU.
Putin is playing 19th century strategy, as symbolized by the meaningless
49-year lease he obtained from Bashar Al-Assad for a naval base in Syria, in a
21st century which has no room for imperial projection of power. Obamas
pusillanimity encouraged Putins aggressive game to the detriment of both
Russia and the US, not to mention other nations affected.
Though Russia is not an ''enemy'', disabusing Putin of his illusions would be
good not only for the US but also for Russia. Trump should welcome Russia as a
rival for the United States, if that is its choice, but should make it clear
to Putin that playing adversary will no longer be cast free.
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran,
London and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
(1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In
1984-92, he served as member of the Executive Board of the International Press
Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, the
New York Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French magazine
Politique Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005,
he was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11
books, some of which have been translated into 20 languages. He has been a
columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian
Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments